Because republicans are hypocrites. It's okay to spend 200 billion a year in Iraq, a war that the general leading it himself said doesn't make America safer, but it's not okay to spend 20 billion on childrens healthcare and education cause that's just pork.
I don't understand why republicans, who complain so much about taxes, would rather have their money spent on failed Iraq policies instead of their own neighbors.
2007-11-14 01:32:30
·
answer #1
·
answered by Franklin 7
·
8⤊
1⤋
Universal health care is socialist by definition no matter where it is. It is inferior to the free market system and extremely wasteful of assets. While support of this type is often necessary in countries emerging from wars where most of the infrastructure has been destroyed, it is not suitable for established countries. In Iraq or any other country just emerging from war, the population will need to be fed, clothed and provided hygiene and medical care until the infrastructure such as ports, farms, warehouses, factories, hospitals etc. can be rebuilt.
So, for now providing health care, food and other necessities is required in Iraq. It will eventually recover and not need such assistance.
.
2007-11-14 01:42:58
·
answer #2
·
answered by Jacob W 7
·
1⤊
4⤋
We do have to give some concessions to the Iraqis, while we steal their oil, the angry crowds must be bought off somehow.
In the US. the ruling elites have their power guaranteed, so the people can be further exploited.
2007-11-14 02:04:15
·
answer #3
·
answered by . 5
·
1⤊
1⤋
Does not make any sense to me at all, so we might as well assume that oil has something to do with it. Makes as much sense as anything else people come up with.
Just the same, it makes one wonder...if Bush can turn down the world when they offered to help after the Katrina disaster--what exactly are his priorities? Certainly not US citizens who didn't elect him in the first place....?
2007-11-14 01:30:03
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
7⤊
1⤋
i cannot give you a logical answer because there isn't one capable of bridging this discrepancy.
i think Bush sees Iraq's success as his legacy, so victory there is more important than here in his own country. perhaps only American contractors will be allowed to provide the health care in Iraq?
2007-11-14 01:25:14
·
answer #5
·
answered by Free Radical 5
·
5⤊
1⤋
Who said it was good sound policy? I don't think so. Besides, the only thing our government give a crap about in Iraq is the oil production.
2007-11-14 01:23:13
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
2⤋
let me put it this way to you friend: firstly its the democratic repulic of Iraq, 2-there is war out there and u.s. marines are fighting them bad guys, 3-stop arguing and realize that if the U.S. and A. levaes Iraq then the Iranians would move in and take all the oil money..4- and with the middle east running around like a mad dog...who do you think then will be deciding the oil prices 5-a worse scenario...what if all those small countries like kuwait, and UAE, and saudi arabia joined the middle eastern independent coalition next? DO YOU GET IT? HOW DANGEROUS IT COULD GET AMIGO?
2007-11-14 01:28:29
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
6⤋
Who said universal healthcare is Socialist?
The argument has always, ALWAYS, been that Senator Clinton is Socialist. Healthcare is just part of her agenda and the way she wants to fund it is Socialist.
It is hard to debate when people aren't REALLY listening to what people are saying.
2007-11-14 01:27:04
·
answer #8
·
answered by MrOrph 6
·
2⤊
6⤋
Because the insurance companies who are paying the politicians to be against it are worried that they won't be able to steal from us anymore.
2007-11-14 01:26:29
·
answer #9
·
answered by My Thoughts U Can't Decode 5
·
6⤊
2⤋
Welcome to the wonderful world of Republican hypocrisy.
2007-11-14 01:57:38
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
1⤋